So which does NMA think is more important: worldbuilding or the overall experience?

[Black Angel]

Talking about this on the most fundamental level (Yes or No/This or That) would indeed came out as shallow, but what Gizmo meant in regards to the bigger picture is that could be your past choices might open up a new path on your present condition. Could be that because you've done your friend a favor, they decided to help you out knowing you missed the train. Or that because you managed to rescue your friend out of a sticky situation, he's now hanging out at the right time and the right place precisely as your miss the train, and now your friend decided to pay his debt to you.
Meanwhile, if you offer them all at the same juncture, of which I assume you mean the choice to get helped by your friend is there, *regardless* of your past choice, then that's no better, and in fact, worse, don't you think? Also, assuming it's going to be "endless forks in the road" is also stretching it too far. Layered gameplay and 'networked' gameplay has its pros and cons; I wouldn't necessarily say one is better than the other, but based on my personal experience I *think* networked gameplay, where choices and consequences matter, with prominent reactivity that occurs as the player moves their character through the game has always been my preference in RPGs, and Fallout games are definitely a testament to this.
Though, I admit I actually don't understand what did you exactly meant by 'layered' gameplay, care to give some example of games, especially RPGs, that did it and did it right?

 

[The Doctor]

Where's the "yes" option?

They sorta feed into one another - a good experience encourages you to look around and uncover more while worldbuilding (usually) tends to give a better experience

 

[Kohno]

The experience is more important. I’ve always rejected the idea, that seems popular in certain circles, that Fallout is just an interactive storybook.

The writing and lore do need to be adequate and respectful of the original style and quality, obviously, but it’s still just one part of the experience (and below gameplay in importance as far as I’m concerned). Bad - or, rather, ill fit - gameplay can easily ruin even the best of writing, while the opposite is not even close as much true.

 

[Gizmojunk]

That seems shallow to me. What narrative significance is there to catching a train as opposed to happening to get a ride from a friend? The outcome is identical.

That is an assumption; similar to "Either way he graduates college", or "either way he died in the end". Why should it be identical? The journey is different; the PC could have become a hunted criminal accomplice by the end of the car ride, or hospitalized after a train wreck. On the train they could have overheard information they could never have learned sitting in the car.

Did you ever see the film "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles"? Simply ending up in the same location by either means, is by no means identical; even if both choices were just a fade to black, and resumed at the destination, there is still the choice of travel that could be used in the narrative. The local law could be searching the roads for a fugitive; all train passengers could be quarantined due to contagion. [etc...]

They could differ though, I'll grant you that, and each could be a distinct playstyle...but that would only lead to cycling through them in a sequence of binary stages...which is a silly way to do what is better accomplished by offering them all at the same juncture. To me, it's archaic; something that was once novel, but is now used to create the illusion of choice/depth. Layered gameplay is just better than endless forks in the road.

(Your answer to the above quote ), but... who says that all (or any) of those events are not mutually exclusive—and unavailable if another choice is already taken? The choice to take the car can preclude ever learning the information heard on the train; Succeeding at catching the train could preclude the option to steal money from a wrecked armored car on the highway.

Talking about this on the most fundamental level (Yes or No/This or That) would indeed came out as shallow, but what Gizmo meant...

I didn't this before I reiterated it.

 

[Octavian]

You need to show where they get their food because if you don't, you question how they are even alive. It's made worse by the fact that Fallout's story was made around people needing water to survive and then you have places showing where people get their food by showing farms.

And yes, people should complain about Super Mutants being in the East Coast. It's contrived, nonsensical and it was just more of Bethesda's recycle of stuff from the first two games because they were too lazy to come up with new things for the series.

As far as the farms thing is concerned I wasn't trying to make an umbrella statement, In retrospect my post was pretty hastily written. Lets take New Vegas as an example, because its the game where water isn't central to the themes. I wouldn't give half a fuck if some towns like goodsprings or whatever had no farms, the main thing everyone is vying for is electricity. Also, there are other ways than ingame assets they can show the importance of something. I'd rather have dialogue, quests, etc related to water or food that allow the player to interact with and truly understand the value of stuff like that in the wasteland than just a patch of farmland I'll probably ignore being tilled by an NPC that does nothing.

Being triggered by believability/lore is exactly how we got the jokes of the games that are 4 and 76. Bethesda thought people would eat up garbage fucking gameplay and story because everyone was just complaining about the canon and the worldbuilding.

I'm probably in the minority here but I feel like the implementation of super mutants in fallout 3 wasn't bad at all, it was just executed horribly. While it seems a bit coincidental and contrived, its thematically in place and, if it was done right, could serve as an interesting parallel of the themes from the master's army and even the vault dweller's journey. The only thing they fucked up with was just making them bumfuck stupid elder scrolls orcs that do nothing but hang up gore bags and attack with nail boards on sight.

I really don't know how to reply to this. It's like reading a forum post from a kid from middle school more interested in being edgy then actually contributing to a discussion.

World building for role playing games is paramount, it's literally a key feature that determines the dynamics of game play. From what I can tell you are trying to boil role play rules down, but missing the point of what the experience needs to entail to remain dynamic.

This perspective you have is very similar to how Bethesda has been approaching Fallout.

Take a moment to consider this critically, if you can. Without a dynamic world setting, how is there any progress? Game mechanics don't define progress, they define rules of play. Agency doesn't define progress, it defines the illusion of choice.

If a role playing game lacks the required world building, then all you have is an excel sheet with two options. Yes or no. That does not make a role playing game, that's only a binary choice.

World building can be accomplished in different ways. World building through actual gameplay (questing, characters, dialogue) within the scope of the current game and its themes is a lot more important to me than worldbuilding in terms of an in game universe or some ugly ass pixels that only someone deliberately trying to find stuff wrong about a game would search out in every single town. Nothing between 2 games in a series needs to be consistent besides gameplay and themes, and complaining about fucked up canon or plotholes or whatever is how we get stuff that fits "in canon" like 76 but is just a shit game.


For the most part I just have a more extreme stance on what @Kohno has stated in this thread.

 

[Risewild]

One could do a lot with a detailed Excel spreadsheet that stipulated the Yes & No answers to all potential player actions (and their consequences). It doesn't matter as much whether the answer is Yes or No, as it does what happens when the PC succeeds or fails. In this case a binary choice always means taking the path to either the left or the right.

I think you missed the point.

Having an excel spreadsheet with a yes or no option is bad, having an excel spreadsheet with yes and no and then the consequences of that yes and no is world building.
Basically you're saying the same as Einhanderc7 said.

The choice of yes and no with world building is important for a game, a choice of just yes and no is usually nothing.

For example. Let's imagine you find an NPC, this NPC tells you that they need water to survive, that he is too weak to even stand up without water, and asks you for a bottle of water. You can say yes or no.
If you say yes, you lose one bottle of water and that's it. If you say no, the NPC stays there and nothing happens.
He will ask for a bottle of water regardless if you previously picked yes or no to his request.

Now let's take that example and change it a bit.
The NPC tells you that they need water to survive, that he is too weak to even stand up without water, and asks you for a bottle of water. You can say yes or no.
You say yes, and give him a bottle of water and he drinks it, after a few seconds he gets up, thanks you and goes on his way.
You say no, he begs you for some water but you leave, later you return and he is dead.

This is a very simple comparison. In the first example, there is the "quest", but nothing really changes if you say yes or no, because there is no consequences of your decision. It lacks "world building", because it allows someone that is dying from thirst to never die from it, even when refused water. It is just a yes or no decision.
In the second example, that yes and no decision has consequences, the NPCs is "saved" and he and the world react to it, or he is refused help and once again, he and the world react to it too. That is world building, where the world follows rules and those rules decide, in some way, the consequences of your actions.

Let's take that same example and apply it a second time, this time it's exactly the same, but there are two NPCs asking for water. You give water to one, but not to the other. They both stay there asking for more water.
Now the second example, you give water to one but not to the other, when you later return, one of several things might happen:

• They are still both alive, but they still ask for more water.
• The one you gave water is still alive, the other is dead or not there anymore.
• The one you gave water to is dead or not there anymore, while the one you didn't give the water is still alive.
• They are both dead.

In the first point, if you talk to one of them, they tell you how the one you gave water to shared his water with the second one. This helped both to live, but not enough for them to stop needing water.

In the second point, the surviving NPC tells you that the second one died from thirst.

In the third point, you talk to the NPC and find out (nice opportunity for using some skill or Attribute check) that the one that survived was desperate enough, that he attacked and killed the other one to steal it's water.

In the last point you have no idea why they are both dead, but the game might allow some skill or attribute check so your character notices that they are both suffering from recent injuries, a nearby bloody rock, shiv, log indicates that they must have fought each other, a full bottle of water sits in the middle of the corpses.

Again, the first example was without world building, so whatever you do, doesn't really affect anything.
The second example was using world building to represent how NPCs would react to your choices. Since in this "world" people can die from thirst, and they are desperate enough, they can behave in a way they would be expected to behave.

Excel spreadsheet "yes and no" VS Excel spreadsheet "yes and no with world building".

 

[Gizmojunk]

For example. Let's imagine you find an NPC, this NPC tells you that they need water to survive, that he is too weak to even stand up without water, and asks you for a bottle of water. You can say yes or no.
If you say yes, you lose one bottle of water and that's it. If you say no, the NPC stays there and nothing happens.
He will ask for a bottle of water regardless if you previously picked yes or no to his request.

This happens all the time in real life; and not just with water—with money.

Now let's take that example and change it a bit.
The NPC tells you that they need water to survive, that he is too weak to even stand up without water, and asks you for a bottle of water. You can say yes or no.
You say yes, and give him a bottle of water and he drinks it, after a few seconds he gets up, thanks you and goes on his way. You say no, he begs you for some water but you leave, later you return and he is dead.

I doubt it...and why would he do that? If you say No, he'll forget you and beg from someone else. He'll see you the next day and beg again because he doesn't recognize you from the day before. If he gets nothing from anyone, he'll go get his drink from his stash of —probably many— water bottles (collected from all the people he's begged them from).

I know what you mean mechanically speaking... but it actually plays out more realistically that way... sad to say. By giving him alms, you incentivise him to stay there and keep begging; it becomes his primary occupation... because it pays. In practice, it plays out that he would stay there like nothing happened; and he will surely be there the next day doing the exact same thing.
___________

This is a very simple comparison. In the first example, there is the "quest", but nothing really changes if you say yes or no, because there is no consequences of your decision. It lacks "world building", because it allows someone that is dying from thirst to never die from it, even when refused water. It is just a yes or no decision.

A yes/no decision whose only practical value is in the satisfaction of the giving (or declining... depending on the PC's mentality); I don't see that there needs to be any closure or change after that. They know what they chose.

In the second example, that yes and no decision has consequences, the NPCs is "saved" and he and the world react to it, or he is refused help and once again, he and the world react to it too. That is world building, where the world follows rules and those rules decide, in some way, the consequences of your actions.

World-building [to me] means designing a landscape, and populating it with interesting locations and characters, and potentially architecture... it really doesn't matter —from a world building perspective— if they react plausibly or not to arbitrary actions. The game Riven has a fantastic world (worlds actually) and very few NPCs to speak with (almost none).

Fallout has a good world (even believable —within its context), and most NPCs will stand rooted to the spot. If you give Harold money in the Hub, he'll thank you, but it changes nothing; he'll still be there the next day—same as any of the other of the vagrants... same as the merchants, same as the town sheriff, and other town leaders, and most of the residents.

________________

...Again, the first example was without world building, so whatever you do, doesn't really affect anything.

To me this sounds like they built a static world—not no world at all.

Excel spreadsheet "yes and no" VS Excel spreadsheet "yes and no with world building".

I disagree. The choices I was speaking of (the binary choices) were the yes & no answers coming from the engine. Those being "Yes" you manage to give the water, or "No", you managed to drop the water and waste it on the ground. IMO the developer need not design the encounters to the degree that you describe—need not even care about them. They need only design the AI to die if it doesn't get water, and has no options that succeed; (like theft, luck, or having water hidden away somewhere). They can include a line for thanks if given something of value. If that item was water, the AI would consume it, otherwise they would leave to trade it for water, if they needed water; the developers could even include additional dialog lines to beg further, since they obviously have an emotional softy... and that's an opportunity for additional free stuff from someone gullible enough to give it to them.

Personally, I would find it incredulous to always find out the incidental details to minor encounters like that; that doesn't normally happen—it's rare. I can't imagine that the second vagrant would admit to killing the first for the water... certainly they'd assume that would affect their chance of getting anything else from the PC; so it's not in their best interest to tell the truth. I would find it very contrived and disappointing to routinely get fed confirmations after every minor action.

If the PC declines to give a begger bus fare, they don't need to find out (and likely never would) whether or not the person caught the bus —or spent the money on Twinkies, and used their bus token to pay the fare.

 

[Risewild]

This happens all the time in real life; and not just with water—with money.

But money is different. It is not a "Give me money or I will die, because I'm too weak to even stand up already".
If you can't stand up from thirst, you are at death's doors. You don't drink something soon, you will die in less than a day or so.

Also in my examples I didn't say they are lying, I meant they are really dying from thirst.
I thought it was clear with me mentioning the whole "The world has rules and people die from thirst", and the whole "people being desperate enough to kill and even die from that last bottle of water" part. But maybe I wasn't that clear.

My examples are based on the world building, if a game tells us that people die from thirst and you see someone dying from thirst, then a "yes or no" choice where there is no consequences (good or bad) is just that. A useless choice. An empty echo.

The yes and no choice is only good in a game when it has world building around it. The world tells us people die from thirst, you see a desperate person dying from thirst and refuse water to them, and they just sit there day after day after day... That makes it a spreadsheet "yes or no" case.

It is only important, good, immersive, well done, whatever you want to call it, if there is world building so that choice of "yes or no" actually does, affect, change, influence, whatever you want to call it something.

I doubt it...and why would he do that? If you say No, he'll forget you and beg from someone else. He'll see you the next day and beg again because he doesn't recognize you from the day before. If he gets nothing from anyone, he'll go get his drink from his stash of —probably many— water bottles (collected from all the people he's begged them from).

I know what you mean mechanically speaking... but it actually plays out more realistically that way... sad to say. By giving him alms, you incentivise him to stay there and keep begging; it becomes his primary occupation... because it pays. In practice, it plays out that he would stay there like nothing happened; and he will surely be there the next day doing the exact same thing.

I addressed this in the previous point. The NPC is really desperate and dying from thirst, it is not a scam artist or a beggar. Giving him water would save him, but without the world building where there is no consequences to not give him water, makes it a shallow choice.

A yes/no decision whose only practical value is in the satisfaction of the giving (or declining... depending on the PC's mentality); I don't see that there needs to be any closure or change after that. They know what they chose.

There is no satisfaction in choosing to save someone's life that is not in really danger of dying even if the game tells us they are. The game tells us this person is dying of thirst, and you refuse water, but he just sits there without anything bad happening. Then what's the point? My character might like to help people in need, but this NPC is not in need because nothing bad will happen to it even if you don't give him water.
I'm being artificially "good" by giving him the water. It's a hollow action, because without the world building, around what happens if you help him or not, there is no consequences of your actions. It's a decision for the sake of deciding, not for the sake of the NPC, or the PC or the game world or game "experience". It's shallow and feels fake.

World-building [to me] means designing a landscape, and populating it with interesting locations and characters, and potentially architecture... it really doesn't matter —from a world building perspective— if they react plausibly or not to arbitrary actions. The game Riven has a fantastic world (worlds actually) and very few NPCs to speak with (almost none).

Fallout has a good world (even believable —within its context), and most NPCs will stand rooted to the spot. If you give Harold money in the Hub, he'll thank you, but it changes nothing; he'll still be there the next day—same as any of the other of the vagrants... same as the merchants, same as the town sheriff, and other town leaders, and most of the residents.

World Building is way more than that. World Building is all the definitions on what makes the world work. It is not just the locations, it is how the game universe works. It's kinda like the rules of the universe. It's the physics and chemistry of that universe. It's how it works.

For example, in the Star Wars "universe", a part of it's world building is that in space, sound can still be heard. That is why we can hear the spaceships flying around and weapons being shot in space. That is a part of Star Wars universe "world building". It's the rules that make that "world" or "universe" work.

Have a world where people need water to survive? Does it show where they get water from?
Yes = good world building.
No = bad world building.

Have a universe where average people automatically die at age 33? Does average people really automatically die at age 33?
Yes = good world building
Now = bad world building

Your definition of World-Building is actually World/Area-Design. Those two things are usually handled by different people in a game company (unless it's a small game company, like an indie dev).
Usually who handles World-Building is the main writer, they decide how the game universe works. Who handles Area-Design is usually the Mappers, and they usually follow concept artist designs. Some NPCs and quests can indeed be designed by the main writer, but usually they are handled by the secondary writers (specially if there is no main quest around). Main writer can also "write" important NPCs and sometimes secondary NPCs, but usually the secondary NPCs are mainly written by secondary writers.

I think you're basing your definition on the literal word in the name "world building", while the "world" in it means something much more, it is the universal rules of the "game world", not just the areas and characters of that world.
But don't gt mistaken, individual areas and characters are also part of the world building.
Like I said, if we have a world where people die from thirst and then we have entire individual areas and NPCs where they survive without water sources for months, that is bad world building.

To me this sounds like they built a static world—not no world at all.

A world to stop being what you call a static world, needs good world building. It's what I have been saying all along (and not only me but others on this thread too). A world without good world building will be static and shallow, it will feel cheap and irrelevant, your actions don't count for anything in that world, the player will not care about it or be bored of caring fast. It's as choosing a yes or no in an excel spreadsheet. It's just a decision, nothing more.

I disagree. The choices I was speaking of (the binary choices) were the yes & no answers coming from the engine. Those being "Yes" you manage to give the water, or "No", you managed to drop the water and waste it on the ground. IMO the developer need not design the encounters to the degree that you describe—need not even care about them. They need only design the AI to die if it doesn't get water, and has no options that succeed; (like theft, luck, or having water hidden away somewhere). They can include a line for thanks if given something of value. If that item was water, the AI would consume it, otherwise they would leave to trade it for water, if they needed water; the developers could even include additional dialog lines to beg further, since they obviously have an emotional softy... and that's an opportunity for additional free stuff from someone gullible enough to give it to them.

I really think you keep misunderstanding. You keep saying the same thing I say without even noticing.
What you call "design the AI to die if it doesn't get water" is the whole part of my example that counts as world building. If the game is programmed to let a thirsty character die if he doesn't get water but let it survive if he gets water, that is world building.
You even go further in the world building as to say that they could get something of value they could trade for water later, although my example was they were really dying of thirst and you're the one there that can help them or not.
Your words describe exactly the "good world building turn a yes or no decision into something good/relevant/whatever you want to call it" as opposed to "yes and no spreadsheet situation".

Personally, I would find it incredulous to always find out the incidental details to minor encounters like that; that doesn't normally happen—it's rare. I can't imagine that the second vagrant would admit to killing the first for the water... certainly they'd assume that would affect their chance of getting anything else from the PC; so it's not in their best interest to tell the truth. I would find it very contrived and disappointing to routinely get fed confirmations after every minor action.

I wouldn't call it a minor encounter, when you find someone dying from thirst and you're their last hope.
It would be minor if your decision would change nothing (spreadsheet yes or no), but in a game with good world building, that encounter means the life or death of one or two NPCs. It should be important, lives are on the line.
Also about the NPC that killed the other one, notice I mentioned that would be a great part to include some kind of skill or attribute check. That is also using world building as an example. If in this universe your character has a skill or attribute that can influence NPCs, the player has a chance of using that as to find out what happened to the other NPC. Skill/Attribute checks are optional, and are usually a player decision if they use them or not.
You say that you would find it very contrived and disappointing to routinely get fed confirmations after every minor action (although saving or dooming someone shouldn't be a minor action at all) but it would be optional, only if the player pursued it on their own. Which is player preference. And a good game should always give player options. If I want to know what happened to the other NPC, I should be given the option to find out, specially since there is someone I can ask about it right there.

 

[NMLevesque]

Talking about this on the most fundamental level (Yes or No/This or That) would indeed came out as shallow, but what Gizmo meant in regards to the bigger picture is that could be your past choices might open up a new path on your present condition. Could be that because you've done your friend a favor, they decided to help you out knowing you missed the train. Or that because you managed to rescue your friend out of a sticky situation, he's now hanging out at the right time and the right place precisely as your miss the train, and now your friend decided to pay his debt to you.
Meanwhile, if you offer them all at the same juncture, of which I assume you mean the choice to get helped by your friend is there, *regardless* of your past choice, then that's no better, and in fact, worse, don't you think? Also, assuming it's going to be "endless forks in the road" is also stretching it too far. Layered gameplay and 'networked' gameplay has its pros and cons; I wouldn't necessarily say one is better than the other, but based on my personal experience I *think* networked gameplay, where choices and consequences matter, with prominent reactivity that occurs as the player moves their character through the game has always been my preference in RPGs, and Fallout games are definitely a testament to this.
Though, I admit I actually don't understand what did you exactly meant by 'layered' gameplay, care to give some example of games, especially RPGs, that did it and did it right?

I don't know how I could have been clearer, so I'll just let ya know that my reply was not understood. Not that it matters.

 

[Black Angel]

I don't know how I could have been clearer, so I'll just let ya know that my reply was not understood. Not that it matters.

Hence why I ask what did you actually, exactly meant with "layered" gameplay. Don't have strong feeling about elaborating? Come on, man, not you too.

In case you wonder why I said that, it's because lately I've been encountering people who tried to participate in a lengthy discussion, only to dismiss my points by saying that they don't have strong feelings about it. It's fine if they don't want to participate any further; admitting to agree to disagree is the better thing to say, but saying they "don't have strong feelings" is mindboggling. Why'd they even try to participate in the first place if they don't have strong feelings about it?

 

[NMLevesque]

Hence why I ask what did you actually, exactly meant with "layered" gameplay. Don't have strong feeling about elaborating? Come on, man, not you too.

In case you wonder why I said that, it's because lately I've been encountering people who tried to participate in a lengthy discussion, only to dismiss my points by saying that they don't have strong feelings about it. It's fine if they don't want to participate any further; admitting to agree to disagree is the better thing to say, but saying they "don't have strong feelings" is mindboggling. Why'd they even try to participate in the first place if they don't have strong feelings about it?

I said my piece. I didn't feel like belaboring a point that I explained clearly. Simply put, if people want more effort on my part, then they need to make an effort to understand. Which is reliably indicated by whether or not they can explain which part lost them.

By layered I meant this: if you can go through the same stage of a quest multiple ways then it has layers, they are stacked on top of each other figuratively. It's a metaphor, or imagery if you will. This is in contrast to spreading out options over a sequence of forks in the road. Layered gameplay can be fluid and dynamic. It adds depth rather than, at best, always being one step away an illusion of choice.

 

[Black Angel]

I said my piece. I didn't feel like belaboring a point that I explained clearly. Simply put, if people want more effort on my part, then they need to make an effort to understand. Which is reliably indicated by whether or not they can explain which part lost them.

By layered I meant this: if you can go through the same stage of a quest multiple ways then it has layers, they are stacked on top of each other figuratively. It's a metaphor, or imagery if you will. This is in contrast to spreading out options over a sequence of forks in the road. Layered gameplay can be fluid and dynamic. It adds depth rather than, at best, always being one step away an illusion of choice.

I did put an effort to try understanding your post. In fact, I tried going over it multiple times, and yet I just can't get it.

Why? Now that you actually took your time to elaborate, I finally get why I don't understand your post initially. It's because I can't think of a clear example of RPGs where layered gameplay the way you mentioned is implemented. I'm pretty sure the Fallout games, even New Vegas, has its options form forked paths that leads to different ends and different rewards.

Spoiler

I actually wanted to contest you over the terms "forked road"; if you want to call your preference 'layered' gameplay, then the thing Gizmo talked about I would call 'networked' gameplay. Because simply choosing to invest in a certain skill is already a choice, that leads to opening up different options; whether in dialogue or gameplay. So, calling them 'forked roads' like the options are there, as if different character builds came from exact same point and then get presented by a forked road that leads to more forked roads is not what (I'd assume) Gizmo meant.

But, now that I think about it, The Outer Worlds *might* be the game that will implement this 'layered' gameplay, simply because the devs planned to allow you to see an optional dialogue lines that your character can't pass, but if it's close enough, you can say goodbye to the NPC, get some skill points to increase the relevant skill to sufficient level (whether through leveling up or using a skill book counterpart of TOW), and then pass that check.
Now that I think about it, Age of Decadence actually have what you described as layered. The most prominent examples are Teron Palace infiltration (at some point you get to return to some places in the palace multiple times and exhaust some options, even though some choices can end the infiltration prematurely) and the defense of the Pass, a la 300 (you can return to the phase of deciding how to reinforce the fort, even though some previous choices might affect how long it takes before the Ordu arrives).

 

[NMLevesque]

I finally get why I don't understand your post initially. It's because I can't think of a clear example of RPGs where layered gameplay the way you mentioned is implemented. I'm pretty sure the Fallout games, even New Vegas, has its options form forked paths that leads to different ends and different rewards.

...Fallout let's you go through the same stage multiple ways. That's layered gameplay. I don't even...ugh. Splitting hairs is why I shortened mine years ago. Seems the solution here is similar. Pedantics certainly do evoke a similar kind of pain.

 

[Black Angel]

...Fallout let's you go through the same stage multiple ways. That's layered gameplay. I don't even...ugh. Splitting hairs is why I shortened mine years ago. Seems the solution here is similar. Pedantics certainly do evoke a similar kind of pain.

I'm not a native-English speaker, so there's still a lot of sentences that took me time to understand and even then it's not perfect.

And even then, can you please be less of an asshole? Have I not kindly ask you to give specific example? Okay, you've mentioned now that Fallout actually have layered gameplay where we can go through same stage multiple ways. You could have further elaborate on this by giving specific example, like a quest or two to reinforce your points. You could even take a look at the examples I provided and use that as a comparison, to say if it's correct example or not, but NOOOOOOOO. Instead, you have to go specify that splitting hairs shortened yours years ago.

 

[naossano]

The water beggar is more a matter of world reactivity rather than worldbuilding.
You can have worldbuilding in non-interactive fictions, like books.
reactivity, on the other hand, mostly applies to games.

 

[joevonzombie]

Not to sound like an asshole, but my issues with the modern Fallout games aren't purely lore inconsistency. The actual "game" part of these games suck ass too. They're open world RPG/FPS where your choices don't particularly matter, almost all of the core systems are poorly implemented, there's no real incentives to explore the game world and feature the worst shooting mechanics of any triple A release in the last 20 years.

Jet being on the east coast is a problem for sure, but it's not THE problem.